• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / GFX 50S / Fuji 23/4 on GFX, Nikon 14-24/2.8 on D810

Fuji 23/4 on GFX, Nikon 14-24/2.8 on D810

June 30, 2017 JimK Leave a Comment

This is the 62nd in a series of posts on the Fujifilm GFX-50S. The series starts here. 

A few days ago, I compared the 23 mm f/4 Fuji lens on the GFX to the Zeiss Batis 18 on the Sony a7RII. The Batis, while looking like a fine lens in its own right, didn’t come off too well against the Fuji 23 on the larger, higher-resolution sensor. Someonme asked me to do the same kind of comparison with the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 lens on the D810.

This seemed like a huge mismatch. What are the issues with this comparison? Let me count the ways:

  1. The Nikon 12-24 is a zoom lens
  2. The Nikon lens is pretty long in the tooth, having been introduced with the D3 10 years — ten years! — ago.
  3. The lens was marketed as a natural companion to the D3, which had a 12 MP sensor.
  4. The D810 has a physically smaller sensor
  5. The D810 has significantly fewer pixels

Nevertheless, I proceeded. I set the Nikon lens to 17 mm, which is the equivalent focal length for the D810’s full frame sensor if you go by picture height. 

Here’s the scene at f/2.8.

 

And with the GFX/23:

 

The reason the sizes of the objects look different in the two images above is that, because of the blog formatting, they are scaled to constant width here, while the lens focal length selection was done by image height. I did not re-shoot the GFX images, so they are made a couple of days apart, at about the same time of day, and with about the same framing. The Nikon lens shows more light falloff off-axis than the Fuji setup.

I focused both cameras manually at their taking f-stops on the lighter foliage in the upper-right-central part of the image. I focused and exposed four times for each aperture, and picked the best shot from each camera for each f-stop.  Shutter set to EFCS for both cameras, which meant it really was EFCS at the narrower apertures for the GFX.   2-second self-timer for the Fuji, and 3-second shutter delay for the Nikon. Arca-Swiss C1 cube on RRS sticks.Small exposure corrections in Lr. Daylight white balance selected in Lightroom.  

I exported tight crops from the developed images as 700-pixel-wide JPEGs. That means that the images are all heavily upsampled. The GFX images are 253% of their original size in both dimensions. The a7RII images are at 295%.  The different ratios are necessary to compensate for the variations in the height of the sensors when measured in pixels.

If you just want a rough idea of the differences, just look at the images as displayed in-line in the posts. However, if you wish to compare these images in detail, you should view these images by clicking on them to see the source files, then setting your browser for 100% zooming. Even better, download them and make Photoshop stacks.

No matter what you do, these crops are all going to look horrible. I’m blowing them up so much so that they will represent the original file after JPEG’s discrete cosine transform has had its way with them. If you want to get a good idea of what the images would look like printed, get far away from your monitor. No, farther than that. Put a bunch of the images up on the screen and back up until the best one starts to look good. Then look at the others. There’s another reason why these images won’t look like the best thing the camera/lens combination can deliver. They’re demosaiced with Lightroom. Lightroom is not awful, but for a particular image, there are usually better raw processors. I use Lr because it’s a de facto standard, because I know it well, and because it’s got good tools for dealing with groups of images.

In the upper-right-center, at equivalent apertures:

Nikon f/2.8

 

Fuji f/4

 

Nikon f/4

 

Fuji f/5.6

 

Nikon f/5.6

 

Fuji f/8

 

Nikon f/8

 

Fuji f/11

And, for a bonus, here’s the Nikon at f/11:

Nikon f/11

In the upper left corner, both sets brightened 2/3 of a stop:

 

Nikon f/2.8

 

Fuji f/4

 

The Nikon’s sharpness isn’t quite this bad if you refocus on the corner; there’s some focus curvature.

Nikon f/4

 

Fuji f/5.6

 

Nikon f/5.6

 

Fuji f/8

 

Nikon f/8

 

Fuji f/11

And another bonus Nikon image, since it continues to get better:

 

Nikon f/11

This is not a fair fight.

[Added 10/11/17: Horshack shows here that much of the Nikon zoom’s poor edge performance is due to field curvature.]

 

 

 

 

 

GFX 50S, The Last Word

← Zeiss Batis 18/2.8 IR hotspotting Focus shift, LoCA, focus stability of Fuji 23/4 on GFX →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

June 2025
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  
« May    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on A Modest Proposal
  • Brandon on A Modest Proposal
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Price and Performance: Hasselblad X vs. Fujifilm GFX
  • DC wedding photographer on A Modest Proposal
  • NiceDays on Do Raw Developers Use the Embedded JPEG as a Color Reference?
  • Christer Almqvist on Diffraction and the Airy disk diameter
  • Paul R on Price and Performance: Hasselblad X vs. Fujifilm GFX
  • JimK on Do Raw Developers Use the Embedded JPEG as a Color Reference?
  • Jack Hogan on Diffraction and the Airy disk diameter
  • Jack Hogan on Do Raw Developers Use the Embedded JPEG as a Color Reference?

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.